What's happened to Barry Arrington? He hasn't written a thing since his lovely christmas poem. I hope he's ok. I've written a poem to cheer him up (if he needs it)
There was a young man named Barry
Science and Faith he decided to marry
Though the job was quite stressful
He was very successful
And a Nobel I'm sure he'll soon carry
Happy New Year Barry, I'm thinking of yousallyann
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
To DaveScot
Thanks that makes senseGSV
December 31, 2008
December
12
Dec
31
31
2008
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
GSV
Yes and no. Plants are well adapted to higher CO2 levels and given adequate sunlight, water, and nutrients will increase their growth rate with increasing CO2 concentration up to about 3x the amount in the air today. It takes considerably more than 3x to become toxic for them. Animals don't particularly care either way since they don't require any CO2 and can tolerate very high concentrations in the air.
Another good thing is that plants need LESS water with increasing concentration of CO2 - their metabolic processes become more water efficient.
CO2 can basically be thought of as plant food and pretty much ignored otherwise.DaveScot
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
This is interesting:
“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide.”
Surely those organisms were adapted to that environment, front loading or whatever, but would die today due to low levels of CO2? So, I would assume, the converse is true also today's organisms would die if CO2 is raised?GSV
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
What seals the issue for me is the behavior of the proponents of GW.
CO2 emissions are about to cause a catastrophe? So let's build dams and nuke plants to replace coal/oil/gas plants.
Well, we can't do that. We have to tear down dams and deactivate nuke plants as per Al Gore.
GW is a scam. It can't be said often enough.tribune7
December 30, 2008
December
12
Dec
30
30
2008
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
On a more serious note where Al Gore's name is mentioned this past week:
Princeton Physicist Will Happer was the Director of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy. In 1993 Al Gore fired Happer for testifying before congress saying that global warming caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide was not supported by physical theories of greenhouse gases.
Professor Happer is not someone to ignore when it comes to physics. Happer has published over 200 scientific papers, is the director of the Atomic Physics Research Group at Princeton University, a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
Says Happer this week (source):
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken."
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow.”
“Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide."
“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility.”DaveScot